Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 777

ORDER regarding page limits re # 776 Stipulation filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/8/2011. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

Case3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document776

1
2
3
4

Brad Seligman (SBN 083838)
Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817)
THE IMPACT FUND
125 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 510.845.3654

Joseph M. Sellers
Christine E. Webber
Jenny R. Yang
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC
West Tower, Suite 500
1100 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.408.4699

5
6
7

Filed12/01/11 Page1 of 3

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
[e-mail]

12

Attorney for Defendant

8
9
10

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CASE NO.: C 01-2252-CRB

BETTY DUKES, PATRICIA SURGESON,
EDITH ARANA, DEBORAH GUNTER and
CHRISTINE KWAPNOSKI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS
FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

23
24

The undersigned counsel, on behalf of Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, Deborah

25

Gunter, and Christine Kwapnoski (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”),

26

hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

WHEREAS, Wal-Mart intends to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint by filing a
Motion to Dismiss or Strike;
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: C 01-2252-CRB

Case3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document776

1

Filed12/01/11 Page2 of 3

WHEREAS, because of the nature and posture of this case Wal-Mart contends that there are

2

an unusual number of issues subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that warrant briefing, including the

3

impact of the Supreme Court’s decision;

4

WHEREAS, this Court’s standing order limits motions to dismiss to 15 pages;

5

WHEREAS, the parties agree that additional briefing would likely benefit the Court and the

6

judicial system by allowing the parties to adequately articulate their positions on the preliminary

7

issues at this stage of this case;

8
9
10

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Wal-Mart have reached an agreement, subject to the Court’s
approval, extending the page limits for the briefing on Wal-Mart’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss or
Strike the Fourth Amended Complaint;

11

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Wal-Mart stipulate and agree as follows:

12

1.

13

exceed 35 pages;

14

2

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Wal-Mart’s Motion shall not exceed 45 pages;

15

3.

Wal-Mart’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, if any, shall not exceed 15 pages.

Wal-Mart’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Fourth Amended Complaint shall not

16
17

Dated: December 1, 2011

18

By:

19

22

Brad Seligman (SBN 083838)
Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817)
THE IMPACT FUND
125 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 510.845.3654

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.229.7520

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Attorney for Defendant

20
21

24
25

/s/ Brad Seligman

_

By:

/s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.

I, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., attest that
concurrence in the filing of this document
has been obtained from the other signatory.

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: C 01-2252-CRB

Case3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document776

1

Filed12/01/11 Page3 of 3

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

2
DATE: December 8, 2011

S

4

RT
U
O

S DISTRICT
TE
C
___________________________
TA

6

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

7
8

RT

ER

10
11

A

H

9

er

R. Brey

LI

NO

harles
Judge C

R NIA

UNIT
ED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CHARLES R. BREYER
D

5

FO

3

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: C 01-2252-CRB